And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

The Fathers decided otherwise at Chalcedon.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up? What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?" If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead. Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Good! Now we have someone who can tell us when the supreme pontiff speaks "ex cathedra."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up? What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?" If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead. Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.

Don't forget 1204.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

Meanwhile, the Pope hand-selects all Bishops and Cardinals following in the tradition of Jesus of selecting the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Even after Judas Iscariot perished, the 11 Disciples gathered together and selected the replacement ... a tradition which is continued in the 15 Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches vs. the 200 "yes men" of the Papal Conclave who are guided more by secular needs then by the Holy Spirit.

Example 1, we (e.g. the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church) need to end Communism - let's select a Polish Pope who officiates Mass before 2 million people in Krakow and implores them not be afraid of a declining Communist power. Two years later, the Solidarity Movement begins. A decade later, the Berlin Wall falls. Six years after death, Pope John Paul II will be beatified and only one more person needs to come forward with a miracle, which occurred after his death, to canonize him as St. Pope John Paul II.

Example 2, with the Cold War at its peak, we need to end the Schism with the Eastern Churches (especially Russia under the Communist thumb) - let's elect Cardinals who know a little bit about the Eastern Churches and trick them into unifying with us, under us. As a result ... one Pope lifted the anathemas in 1964 and the current Pope has expanded discussions with the Orthodox about "global protos" forcing the Orthodox to quickly convene "Episcopal Assemblies" because the Russian Orthodox stormed out of Ravenna in 2007.

Is it not true that Papal claims were being made in the West prior to the Great Schism, and yet it did not divide the Church at that point in time. Since the West had a different understanding of the primacy of Rome from early on, why are we to assume that the Eastern view is automatically the correct one?

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Can you back that statement up? What makes your Church immune from what you define as "modern protestant paranoia?" If such a term as "modern protestant paranoia" existed, there is only one institution to blame ... the Roman Catholic Papacy.

So, your former Orthodox Bishops "protested" against what they perceived as Russian ascendance and allied themselves (willingly or under threat of death) with Rome instead. Thus, you are familiar with the idea of "modern protestant paranoia" because that is the foundation of your Church and you are transferring that "hot potato" to us ... which we reject.

Don't forget 1204.

1456 - 61 years before the Protestant Reformation - Ecumenical Patriarchate becomes ethnarch to the "Rum," a "modern protestant" event. Those who didn't want to be identified with Hellenism or with Russia ... join Rome instead.

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.

Billy Graham was replaced by his son, Franklin Graham.Joel Osteen's father was replaced by his son, Joel Osteen.Pat Robertson will be replaced by his son, Gordon Robertson.

No Synods gathered to elect these replacements - they were passed down as a business/family inheritance.

I've counted 9 different interpretations of Scripture among the names listed although none of them are heads of state (Pat Robertson and the 700 Club comes the closest to emulating a head of state) like the Pope.

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

And yet it has been my experience that the Vicar of Christ tends to be more humble than many fundamentalists who elevate their understanding of Scripture above that of the Pope's. In Protestantism everyone is their own Pope, but not even Pope because they are worse. Everyone is their own Superpope in the fundamentalist Protestant sects.

Take that up with them.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Is it not true that Papal claims were being made in the West prior to the Great Schism, and yet it did not divide the Church at that point in time. Since the West had a different understanding of the primacy of Rome from early on, why are we to assume that the Eastern view is automatically the correct one?

Where were all the Ecumenical Councils held? And whence came most of the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils? And what language were the Ecumenical Councils conducted in? Hint: it is the same language that the Vatican forbids the filioque being recited in: it results in heresy even by Vatican standards.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Where were all the Ecumenical Councils held? And whence came most of the bishops at the Ecumenical Councils? And what language were the Ecumenical Councils conducted in? Hint: it is the same language that the Vatican forbids the filioque being recited in: it results in heresy even by Vatican standards.

Is that still true today especially in the 2 Churches in Athens where Greek Catholicism is celebrated, presumably, in Greek?

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

Meanwhile, the Pope hand-selects all Bishops and Cardinals following in the tradition of Jesus of selecting the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Even after Judas Iscariot perished, the 11 Disciples gathered together and selected the replacement ... a tradition which is continued in the 15 Holy Synods of the Orthodox Churches vs. the 200 "yes men" of the Papal Conclave who are guided more by secular needs then by the Holy Spirit.

Example 1, we (e.g. the Vatican, the Roman Catholic Church) need to end Communism - let's select a Polish Pope who officiates Mass before 2 million people in Krakow and implores them not be afraid of a declining Communist power. Two years later, the Solidarity Movement begins. A decade later, the Berlin Wall falls. Six years after death, Pope John Paul II will be beatified and only one more person needs to come forward with a miracle, which occurred after his death, to canonize him as St. Pope John Paul II.

Example 2, with the Cold War at its peak, we need to end the Schism with the Eastern Churches (especially Russia under the Communist thumb) - let's elect Cardinals who know a little bit about the Eastern Churches and trick them into unifying with us, under us. As a result ... one Pope lifted the anathemas in 1964 and the current Pope has expanded discussions with the Orthodox about "global protos" forcing the Orthodox to quickly convene "Episcopal Assemblies" because the Russian Orthodox stormed out of Ravenna in 2007.

Yup, the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Roman Catholic Church.

That seems about right. Look at the historical circumstances throughout the various ages of the Papacy. If there wasn't some connection between the previous pontiff and the succeeding one, or with kingdoms with which Rome was embroiled with, there was some sort of background of the elected who would be the best choice in dealing with particular issues. I mean really...ever hear of the "chair warming pope"? I'm sure it's the Lord who is just looking to select someone to make appearances!

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

So there's no truth here of any sort except of your own personal assertions and assumptions.

At least some Orthodox representatives are willing to listen to what the Church has to say about herself rather than dictating. I am sure when they begin dictating things will bog down in the bilateral discussions. Till then I am hopeful that hearts and ears are open...not your own of course, I realize but you aren't in charge so I don't much care.

And who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ," no matter what he says 'ex cathedra" being "irreformable" in and of itsefl, and not with the approval of the Church?

Quote

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Id est, the definitions are made from the Pope, and not from a council.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Pius, bishop, servant of the servants of God, with the approval of the Sacred Council, for an everlasting record.

On the institution of the apostolic primacy in blessed Peter

1. We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the lord.

2. It was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said You shall be called Cephas [42], that the Lord, after his confession, You are the Christ, the son of the living God, spoke these words:

Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven [43] .

3. And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].

4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received [47].

4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48].

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.

1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.

9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Good! Now we have someone who can tell us when the supreme pontiff speaks "ex cathedra."

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

You really don't get it do you. This is PRECISELY WHY it is a good example.

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Were those proclamations be contrary to the great universal councils or contrary to Scripture and Tradition then they would not stand in truth.

Now when Blessed John Paul II was confronted with his bishops, clergy and even some of our monastic superiors and exhorted to hear and heed the arguments against the ban on women clergy...The pope stood before all of them who stood against the Church's holy Tradition, and proclaimed against them that Tradition does NOT ALLOW women in the priesthood...

He did not say ++I AS SUPREME PONTIFICATOR++ says so

He said that the universal Tradition of the Catholic Church says so.

There are some who would argue that teaching which he offered is not "ex cathedra"...I am not one of them.

Not a good example - there were no women among the 12 and the 70 Disciples. Jesus did not select his women disciples; women accepted Jesus as the Son of God and voluntarily followed him.

You really don't get it do you. This is PRECISELY WHY it is a good example.

I bet that most Roman (Eastern) Catholic women do not know who is their local Bishop or Archbishop; however, they all know who the current Pope is.

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements. You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas. I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith. It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

Till then I am hopeful that hearts and ears are open...not your own of course, I realize but you aren't in charge so I don't much care.

My heart belongs to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Not interested in another Church on the side.

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments? You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar. Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop, that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands. If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

who's fighitng? Petition whom? And petition for what?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements. You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas. I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

It is not time to sign agreed statements yet. Remember Rome has unilaterally rejected one of them already. There are still many things to discuss but it is clear that Orthodoxy has a few internal issues that need to be settled first, and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...

I also think you under estimate your Patriarchs...or over estimate them depending on perspectives.

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith. It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

From what I've seen so far, you can't even find its roots!!

Besides Jesus told us to leave the tares, so even if you are correct, who then are YOU working for?...

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

My agenda is to defend the purity of the Orthodox Faith. It is only to pull up Ultramontanism by the roots, so its weeds won''t grow back, that I am concerned with the Vatican process.

Besides Jesus told us to leave the tares, so even if you are correct, who then are YOU working for?...

The sower of the good wheat. Is your question another tare for the good soil of Orthodoxy?

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments? You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar. Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop, that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands. If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

Imagine? All I need do is read this Forum...

wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right. I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.

Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here. Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here. So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat. I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions. I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice- but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff. Could you give a direct link?

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

Imagine? All I need do is read this Forum...

wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right. I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.

Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here. Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here. So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat. I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions. I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice- but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff. Could you give a direct link?

Leave it. The links are here on the forum. Some century somebody will find them and ask about them. It can wait. I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation. There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos. It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument. It is actually a very brutally realpolitik. We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses. It is not my heritage.

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that. Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses. It is not my heritage.

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that. Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home. There you will find what you think you already know. It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements. You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas. I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

It has been rejected by plenty on the Orthodox side. I know that they don't count for you, but then, as long as the sovereign of Vatican city refuses to confess the Orthodox Faith, his approval or rejection counts for nothing.

and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...

Quote

Orthodox Bishop's Council of Italy and MaltaA second meeting

Final Press

1. The second meeting of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Italy and Malta took place in Venice (Italy), on Monday 31 May 2010, at the Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius attended (Ecumenical Patriarchate), His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate), Bishop Reverend Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) and Eminence Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate) [the delegation].

2. Internal Regulation of the Council was discussed Orthodox Bishop in Italy and Malta (CEOIM). Among the objectives CEOIM remember

a) to preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church in Italy and Malta, according to Faith, Tradition and his Doctrine

b) coordinate all activities of common interest (pastoral, catechetical, liturgical, social work, publishing, communication, education, etc..). All with the fundamental purpose of serving man for the Lord was born, was crucified and resurrected.

3. It recognized the need to continue the "fraternal dialogue" with other churches and Christian reality, and all people of good faith, the essential prerequisite for theological dialogue, aiming to make a Christian contribution to solving social problems common in Italy and Malta .

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments? You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar. Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop, that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands. If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

« Last Edit: January 22, 2011, 09:56:48 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

And he is quite correct.

There is no such institution as La Papatia in the Church.

It is an aberration manufactured by the Church of Rome.

It does not come from Christ and the Apostles.

It must be destroyed.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

There are Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars who do "get it" so as I said to Pope Ialmisry...it doesn't matter to me that you don't.

If these Orthodox bishops and monk-scholars "got it", the Orthodox representatives to the last 3 dialogues between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would have signed the Agreed Statements. You have seen why the Orthodox representatives haven't signed the last 3 dialogues because there are far more Orthodox Hierarchs who don't "get it" than cozy friends to Roman Catholicism like Met. Zizoulas. I'm waiting for Met. Zizoulas to join Rome like the other "sell outs"1 did in 1595, 1646.

It has been rejected by plenty on the Orthodox side. I know that they don't count for you, but then, as long as the sovereign of Vatican city refuses to confess the Orthodox Faith, his approval or rejection counts for nothing.

and from there, depending upon the intra-Orthodox conclusions, we can either move forward to the next phase, or not...

Quote

Orthodox Bishop's Council of Italy and MaltaA second meeting

Final Press

1. The second meeting of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in Italy and Malta took place in Venice (Italy), on Monday 31 May 2010, at the Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy and Malta under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadius attended (Ecumenical Patriarchate), His Eminence Archbishop Innocent (Moscow Patriarchate), Bishop Reverend Siluan (Romanian Patriarchate) and Eminence Galaction (Bulgarian Patriarchate) [the delegation].

2. Internal Regulation of the Council was discussed Orthodox Bishop in Italy and Malta (CEOIM). Among the objectives CEOIM remember

a) to preserve and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church in Italy and Malta, according to Faith, Tradition and his Doctrine

b) coordinate all activities of common interest (pastoral, catechetical, liturgical, social work, publishing, communication, education, etc..). All with the fundamental purpose of serving man for the Lord was born, was crucified and resurrected.

3. It recognized the need to continue the "fraternal dialogue" with other churches and Christian reality, and all people of good faith, the essential prerequisite for theological dialogue, aiming to make a Christian contribution to solving social problems common in Italy and Malta .

Back to the OP:have we gotten an explanation of how a charism with the certitude of the sacraments is conveyed outside the sacraments? You all claim that when the supreme pontiff speaks ex cathedra, it is the God's honest truth as much as when the a bishop prays the epiclesis (or in your belief, says the words of institution) God's Body lays on the altar. Yet you hold, per Apostolicae Curae, that those Episcopalian bishops and priests who submitted this month to the Vatican, if they said mass in your parishes now before passing under the hands of one of the Vatican's bishop, that it would remain bread and wine, even if he repeated the Tridentine Mass in Latin. Why? Because 1552-3 and 1558-1662 the Anglicans did not say "the office and work of a bishop in the Church of God now committed unto thee by the imposition of our hands." So no orders. And yet you have yet to explain how "the office and work supreme pontiff" is imparted without the imposition of hands. If one of the Anglican use bishops were elected supreme pontiff before his Vatican consecration, would he be pope merely by accepting election?

I've told you before...As long as our documents are filtered through the interpretive mind of Pope Ialmisry there is no real understanding possible because your agenda is to refute the entire papal process.

And he is quite correct.

There is no such institution as La Papatia in the Church.

It is an aberration manufactured by the Church of Rome.

It does not come from Christ and the Apostles.

It must be destroyed.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

Imagine? All I need do is read this Forum...

wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right. I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.

Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here. Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here. So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat. I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions. I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice- but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff. Could you give a direct link?

Leave it. The links are here on the forum. Some century somebody will find them and ask about them. It can wait. I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation. There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos. It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument. It is actually a very brutally realpolitik. We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...

Isn't that disingenuous? You say you have placed it on the Forum. Why did you place it on the Forum?

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Any chance of you bringing your words into the cold light of reality.

Can you name the Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal supremacy?

Can you name Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal infallibility?

The very most I have seen from the most "liberal" bishops is that they would allow the Pope to appear as the Church's mouthpiece and PR man to the world.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses. It is not my heritage.

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that. Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home. There you will find what you think you already know. It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.

You may have icons and Orthodox books in your home but that doesn't come through in any of your writings. You come across as an everyday Roman Catholic. There is no Eastern "feel." And I regret that because this forum needs good representatives of Eastern Catholicism. Apotheoun is here but he doesn't post very often.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

The Serbian Orthodox Church vents, liturgically on the Roman Catholic Church.

I present the following official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Service to Saint Justin was composed on the instructions of the Patriarch and Synod of the Serbian Church and approved for use in all Churches. What is interesting is that Patriarch Irenei is seen as being pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic and so is a fair proportion of the Synod. But they still promulgated the liturgical service.

Troparion, Tone 1

Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.

Kontakion, Tone 1

We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.

It is, as Saint Justin says, the greatest heresy the Church has had to fight.

The Serbian Orthodox Church vents, liturgically on the Roman Catholic Church.

I present the following official liturgical texts for St Justin (Popovic) of Celije (+1979), a newly glorified Saint of the Serbian Orthodox Church. The Service to Saint Justin was composed on the instructions of the Patriarch and Synod of the Serbian Church and approved for use in all Churches. What is interesting is that Patriarch Irenei is seen as being pro-ecumenical and pro-Roman Catholic and so is a fair proportion of the Synod. But they still promulgated the liturgical service.

Troparion, Tone 1

Let us honor with splendor the divinely inspired theologian, the wise Serb Justin, who by the scythe of the Holy Spirit hath thrashed the error of atheism and the insolence of the Latins, being a mystic of the God-man and lover of piety, crying out: Glory to Christ Who hath glorified thee, glory to Him Who hath crowned thee, glory to Him Who hath rendered thee a luminary to those who are in a state of darkness.

Kontakion, Tone 1

We proclaim to the faithful the inexhaustible fount conveying the Orthodox doctrines, and an angel-like man full of divine zeal, the divine Justin, the offspring of the Serbs, who by his sound teachings and writings hath strengthened the faith of all in the Lord.

You do realize that it comes down to 2 simple issues with respect to the papcy, elijahmaria.

The Orthodox will never, EVER, accept Papal supremacy or infallibility. The twisting of biblical verses, historical documents...all of it doesn't matter. That's why "ecumenical discussions" don't go anywhere. The fact is, the RCC and EOC are not one in the same, and by some measures not even close. The papacy just happens to be one of the biggest issues in the mainstream light. Any historian knows that the idea of Papal supremacy didn't exist for the first 1,000 years of Christianity and, Catholic or not, they will say that.

The idea that the Orthodox are just so blind and ignorant is why we won't accept the ludicrous idea that the Bishop of Rome is the "Vicar of Christ" is exactly why we won't be reuniting anytime soon. In Roman Catholicism, there is no room for debate on this. In Orthodoxy, there is also no room for debate on this.

As I said before...Get your petitions ready because I think there's going to be a fight.

Any chance of you bringing your words into the cold light of reality.

Can you name the Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal supremacy?

Can you name Orthodox bishops who have declared they will accept papal infallibility?

The very most I have seen from the most "liberal" bishops is that they would allow the Pope to appear as the Church's mouthpiece and PR man to the world.

But if the spawn are looking at Orthodoxy then the red carpet comes out and we talk about how alike in our thinking we really are...save for a few little things that are easily resolved...

We don't do that. You should listen to the speech that Metropolitan Jonah gave to the ACNA. It's far from what you are imagining.

Imagine? All I need do is read this Forum...

wouldn't mind to quote something from this Forum on that, would you?

BTW I found the reference to Orthodox priests who get themselves involved with Neo-Nazi groups in Russia and some reference to "Orthodoxy or Die" T-shirts.

There are links and a video where the priests are referenced.

Papist was right. I found them here and referenced them elsewhere.

M.

Oh, where? a search under your username for "neo-nazi" brought up nothing of the sort.

I have no idea...I referenced this Forum and copied the links I found here to my Yahoogroup, so I know I got them here. Someone...Papist or someone else maybe said that they thought they had seen them here. So I know I didn't pull it out of my hat. I had no knowledge of Russian Neo-Nazi's till then.

I posted it on Irenikon with the suggestion that it might serve to gain some understanding between the two confessions. I did not have you in mind.

Dear Mary,

I have visited your blog -very nice- but I could find no reference to any of this Nazi stuff. Could you give a direct link?

Leave it. The links are here on the forum. Some century somebody will find them and ask about them. It can wait. I generally don't play the game this way and I am upset with myself that I yielded to the temptation. There is a video by someone who has done some work on neo-Nazis in Russia and I think that the clerics are in his videos. It's not something to be used as a pawn in an Internet argument. It is actually a very brutally realpolitik. We should pray...not carp at one another over it or using it as a battering ram...

Isn't that disingenuous? You say you have placed it on the Forum. Why did you place it on the Forum?

Is it really on your Irenikon blog or are you fantasising?

Go back and read my post, Father. I said it was on my Yahoogroup list. I said nothing about my blog. That is all in your head Father. Just another excuse to be nasty.

I agree with Isa on this, because there is nothing Protestant in the Eastern Orthodox rejection of certain aspects of Western ecclesiology.

Not inherently. However, the alarmist view that some people on this forum hold regarding the role of the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church smacks of fundamentalist Protestant paranoia. We don't believe the Pope replaces Christ or is even equal with Christ, and to assert that is absurd. Yet, sure enough, it has been said on here.

I fear this is not an either/or situation here. Much of what passes for an Eastern Patristic viewpoint is modern protestant paranoia.

Looking through the Ultramontanist lens?

I don't have one of those lenses. It is not my heritage.

I understood that your heritage is Byzantine Catholic (Ruthenian) but I've seen next to nothing of any manifestation of that. Everything you write indicates that you are simply a run of the mill Roman Catholic

You are always welcome to my home. There you will find what you think you already know. It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me, but come...and see.

You may have icons and Orthodox books in your home but that doesn't come through in any of your writings. You come across as an everyday Roman Catholic. There is no Eastern "feel." And I regret that because this forum needs good representatives of Eastern Catholicism. Apotheoun is here but he doesn't post very often.

You'd have to come and spend some time and see, Father. I said nothing about my material possessions. I said you were welcome into my home.

I leave all the posturing to Todd. I don't need to do any of that to prove anything to anyone, least of all you.

You are always welcome to my home. There you will find what you think you already know. It may or may not substantiate you nastiness toward me...

I do not wish to be nasty towards you, Mary, and I remember happier days in our correspondence a few years ago. But I have been scandalised by your attempts to attack Orthodoxy, with allegations about abortion, sexual liberalism, hypocrisy about the Immaculate Conception, etc. As this aspect of your apologetics became apparent to me I realised that what you write needs opposing. In this respect Fr Ambrose Young has been an eye opener for me since he never allows you to get away with disinformation nor does he allow you to pretend that there is agreement in areas where there is not. I have learnt from him.